[IPv6]Re: [v6ops] New draft: "The IPv6 Loopback Address Prefix"

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

[ Replying mid-thread ]

Well, I was correct that there would be a fairly robust discussion on this
topic, and it is still ongoing.

I am posting a new (-01) version with the /96 correction, but without any
other (substantive) changes because there isn't anything that looks like
clear consensus yet (AKA, we are not ignoring y'all's comments, we are
just waiting for them them to coalesce…)

W


On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 2:20 PM, Geoff Huston <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jeremy
>
>
> So this one: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 – 0:0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:FFFF
>
>
>
> right?
>
>
>
>
>
> You are of course correct - I was counting the number of bit to the right,
> where I should been counting the bits to the left
>
> :-)
>
> its a 96 - will be fixed in the next rev Thanks for spotting this!
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Nov 2025, at 4:55 am, Jeremy Duncan <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Warren/Geoff-
>
>
>
>    ((Geoff: I have gone for a simple prefix that sits below the
>
>    IPv4-mapped address block of 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF::/32 - the complication
>
>    is that the prefix then includes the "unspecified address" as well.))
>
>
>
> Regarding the IPv4-mapped address prefix, just to clarify, it’s a /96 not
> a /32 right?
>
>
>
> The recommendation is saying that the loopback prefix will be a /96 not a
> /32 right?
>
>
> So this one: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 – 0:0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:FFFF
>
>
>
> right?
>
>
>
> Or are you saying 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 – 0:0:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF
>
>
>
> -Jeremy
>
>